Gaming the Presidential Debate

There are two amazing things about the upcoming debate between Mitt Romney and President Obama at Hofstra University on Tuesday night: everyone has an opinion about what each candidate should want to accomplish, and most of the advice being given is horse manure.

Not wanting to contribute to the dung being tossed around by the rest of the commentariat, we will forgo giving any counsel to the candidates and concentrate instead on how things are likely to play out.

In truth, it is Obama on the receiving end of most of that advice. After the devastating debacle in Denver, all liberals in the U.S. think they can help the president get his mojo back. Lanny Davis is serious when he suggests that Mr. Obama be respectful, be “firm and strong” when criticizing Romney’s policy positions, and:

3) Most heretical of all — concede a little when you can when the truth requires that you made some mistakes in your first term — and aver that will make you a better president in the second term.

One can only ask what Mr. Davis is imbibing and request he share the brand with everyone. Barack Obama concede he made a mistake? He told Charlie Rose that his biggest mistake was not telling the American people stories about what he was doing.

Does that sound like a candidate eager to admit he blew it?

As for the president pulling a Biden on Romney by laughing, giggling, and contorting his face like a two year old with a soiled diaper, the Obama campaign is already saying they aren’t going to do that:

“You should expect that he’s going to be firm but respectful in correcting the record and the times we expect Mitt Romney will hide from and distort his own policies,” Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters Monday. “He’s energized and I expect he will also be making a passionate case.”

Obama’s primary method of attack is mockery — very unpresidential but effective on the stump. But how will it play in the town-hall format chosen for the debate? When the object of one’s mockery and sarcasm is standing next to you, the tactic can backfire. Belittling an opponent in person can appear mean and small, something the president can’t afford to do. Biden played that role in the vice presidential debate and it cost him some. But can the president get “tough” on Romney without the sarcasm? On such trifles will the debate hang.

For both candidates, it will be a zinger competition — who can get off the most hellacious, gob-smacking, dagger-plunging one-liner of the evening. It has to be a little humorous to take away some of the sting, but it must be on point and on target. And it must be memorable and worthy of being endlessly looped on the cable nets for the next 48 hours. It also must impress the watching audience enough that the first blush of polls give a clear edge to the candidate.

Both men have expectation problems. A Pew survey before the first debate showed a majority of registered voters — 51%-29% — believed the president would win. With the bar set so low for him, Romney’s strong, confident debate performance propelled him to something of an easy victory.

But Pew’s latest shows that expectations for Obama have fallen some while Romney’s have risen markedly. Voters still believe Obama will win, but the margin has narrowed to 41%-37%. Of course, this doesn’t guarantee an Obama victory, but it makes it easier for him to meet the expectations of voters and the pundits.

64 Comments, 43 Threads

I expect the format and questions will be watered down. Superficially challenging, each will include a finger which Obama can pick up and point.
Hillary has laid the foundation for a noble acceptance of some over-arching responsibility for Benghazi’s tragedy (vapid display of faux sorrow for these tragic events will be a fine time waster) while at the same time decrying the refusal of conservatives to support Obama’s fundamental changes to America.
This intransigence on the right, the body language goes, is really what is perpetuating all the H8 in the world.
The whole event will be structured to prevent another Mitt breakthrough. And, really, Mitt shouldn’t be excessive in trying. Simply attending, being himself, and maybe gently teasing the fact that he’s parked in a trap is sufficient.
Ryan’s body language in response to Biden is instructive here. The Lefties will have their pound of flesh; social media will redeem the time subsequently.

“It makes Romney’s job very difficult indeed because, in effect, the GOP candidate has to lower the president’s floor of support in order to overcome what is certainly going to be an Obama advantage in get-out-the-vote operations on Election Day.”

You are the Chicago Editor for PJMedia. I live in a reasonably worldly part of of the rust belt. (Don’t laugh) I promise you that the floor is already much, much lower. Coal and industrial areas have only been making national headlines over the past couple of weeks and that, only through campaign ads. Few in the know CARED TO KNOW what we’ve been dealing with from the beginning of 2009.

As for the democrats getting out the vote: A) The only way there is high impact is through fraud, if that’s what you mean. I do not exagerate when I tell you I know of NO democrat who works with his hands who will be voting for Obama. Ditto for women.

B) The turnout AGAINST Obama and, now, FOR Romney, will be the story in November.
The talkers will clack about what it all means. The doers will be relieved to make plans with a 4-8 year time horizon. In other words, many persons of good will voted for Obama in ’08. Those same persons are pragmatic enough to fix the problem and hire the new guy.

Accidental submit. I hope you are correct that real working folks will not vote for the Marxist-in-Chief. Unfortunately I know many limo libs and life long Democrats who would still vote for Obama if he raped a nun at high noon on the White House lawn.

I’ve always been puzzled how so many otherwise intelligent people are blind as bats when it comes to their political views.

Hang in there Terence57. I worked at tough jobs with my hands for many years, and I support those that do.

I disagree, Terence57. Liberals and conservatives being what they are, you know how they’re going to vote based on philosophical perspective. However, we don’t have such a solid metric for undecideds. The vast majority will develop their opinions based upon what the national news media tell them. They still believe, though their belief is slowly dwindling, that the media is generally objective and fact-based. Where the news does not sway them, public image will. Romney is spun as a “rich guy”. That is usually enough to make people not like someone. Obama, on the other hand is presented as a “man of the people”. Of course, this is despite the fact that Obama has spent more time in his academic and political ivory tower than Romney could ever do. Obama is obvious in his assumption that America lives in the cities and outside the cities is only a dark, savage wasteland. However, the narrative that he is a man of the people has worked. The undecideds are undecided because they are not politically engaged. If they were, they’d see the clear contrast between the two candidates. When they are not engaged, they’ll just believe what they hear the most. Also, being less engaged, they think it is less important to choose the “right” candidate, since they think one is generally as good (or bad) as the other. Therefore, their choices and the reasons for those choices can be quite shallow, such as which candidate is best looking; who has a better speaking voice; who is more charming; etc. In a lot of these categories, Obama still has an advantage. This is the unpalatable truth: at this point in the campaign, substance doesn’t matter anymore. The only thing Romney can do is find a way to turn undecideds into conservatives; make them start caring about politics.

@Old School, thanks and I guess we’ll see. Not to mislead you, I’m not an artisan or a laborer in the usual sense. But just about everyone in my geography knows (or comes to know) physical work as a normal thing, whether they’re being paid or not.

@JLanceCombs, my take has little to do with undecideds and I may have may not have illustrated my point.

You say,
” Liberals and conservatives being what they are, you know how they’re going to vote based on philosophical perspective.”

I tried to show that the animus of laborers is evincive of the poor part that political philosophy is playing. I’m also fond of the letter “p” today. Perhaps because people are pi**ed? Enough of that.

The electorate is in bad enough shape that they have decided to become players in their own destiny. The first thing they want is to stop the pain. Anything Romney/Ryan do which is life affirming, is gravy. I would love to tell you that this election is about ideas. Ideologies will manifest themselves down the road when we’re all feeling a little less uncomfortable and a little more certain, I think.

I agree about the armchair quarterbacks giving “advice” on what the candidates MUST do, but I will say what I’d LIKE to see, and that is for Romney, in this setting, change his tactic completely. Instead of focusing on obama’s failures, I’d like to see him speak directly to the voters. Offer his plans. Connect with their challenges. Explain how their lives will improve if the country changes course. And just let obama flap in the wind.

In the last debate, he can change tactics again, and prove the point that obama’s foreign policy has been just as disastrous as his domestic policy.

I enjoyed the article but I believe that many of the pundits are missing something that I have seen. In the first debate Romney showed that Obama is not the smartest man in the room and that he is just a mortal who has good and bad days like all of us do. But the big thing that became evident to me was that Romney was actually thinking on his feet and Obama was reciting learned phrases that he had used in his stump speeches. He showed no ability to listen to Romney’s replies or responses and simply repeated his learned phrases. I would expect that he will do the same thing this next debate and it will expose his inability to actually think about what is being said. Romney replied to many of Obama’s assertions about him or his plans and it threw Obama off of his one liner attack game. In his stump speeches Obama routinely uses one liners to make the crowd laugh but with Romney standing beside him that will not work. Watch and listen and you will hear/see that Obama will stick with his memorized attack lines and will not adjust to the give and take from Romney. This is death in a debate. John McCain did this with Obama and we all remember how that turned out. Romney won’t.

I agree, the format does not favor Obama. He is not a warm, caring type who empathizes with people’s problems and he isn’t really very good at faking it. He’s got a set of talking points, but hasn’t really thought enough about them to engage in anything like conversation. And the talking points are all the same thing he’s been saying ad nauseum for 4 years (blah, blah, teachers, firefighters, blah, blah, balanced approach, blah, blah, fair share, blah, blah, invest in the future.) He can’t explain why if it hasn’t worked in the last 4 years anything will be any different in the next four years.

And Romney is clearly not going to sit still and be characterized as the evil, rightwing nutjob.

Sir, while I agree with you, you did forget to mention the 3rd debater: the moderator. If she follows the moderator format used in the Ryan/Biden, she will be cutting off Romney and giving extra time to Obama, and she will allow Msr Obama to talk over Msr Romney…who will be debating 2 people tonight.

” … Obama was reciting learned phrases that he had used in his stump speeches. He showed no ability to listen to Romney’s replies or responses and simply repeated his learned phrases.”

Exactly right. It was pathetic to hear Oblahblah repeat ad nauseum the lines his handlers had fed to him, often getting mixed up about what question he was actually answering. You could kind of see the thought behind the eyes, “Is this the answer to that question?” He seemed confused much of the time, essentially because he didn’t know what he was talking about.

You can only fool some of the people some of the time — and Obozo’s time may be up. Mitt Romney is a real person, with real accomplishments, and real answers to the questions that’ll be thrown at him. He’s got reality on his side if the American public isn’t so far gone that they fall for Zero’s virtual reality fantasy world.

With the Town Hall format there will be few opportunities for the candidates to attack each other. A candidate who goes on the attack, rather than answering the question, will lose. The winner of the debate will be the person who responds most directly and honestly to the questions from the public. If the questions directed to Obama are serious, given his pitiful record, it’s hard to see how he can improve his position. His usual bloviations will make matters worse for him.

Barring a stupid gaffe or what the author calls a ‘zinger’, Romney wins.

But this will be O’s strongest debate I think. He’s good at sounding ‘reasonable’ when he tries.
But he is also prone to stupid gaffes.

Why do we hear about the 47% gaffe and we no longer hear about ‘you didn’t build that’, or ‘the private sector is dong fine’.
The GOP seems to be cooperating by no longer mentioning those gaffes and cowering in fear of the 47%.

All Romney has to do about “47% ” is give an honest answer.
Something like this “three minute reply”:

“Yes, I regret offending people with that generalization, as I’m sure The President regretted calling conservatives who would never vote for him as, I think it was “bitter clingers to guns and religion” or something to that effect, right Mr. President?…The point is, yes, we do sometimes generalize about our opponents support base, and the difficulties we have in converting them to our side…and it’s a great sound-bite for the opposition to throw back at you, I tell ya, and that’s the reality of Politics.….But whats really important about that sound bite, is to ask this:

Who really pays the majority of taxes in America? What percentage of the budget are they ALREADY supporting? Why should they pay more? And more importantly, how does INCREASING Government Spending, whether it’s, what, millions of new smart phones now? Complete with paid for calling plans, or doubling the number of folks eligible for Food Stamps… I mean, how does this create jobs? How does this create MORE working, tax PAYING Americans, which quite frankly, I don’t think we have enough of anymore?

I’m sorry, but I don’t think it does. And I’m sorry but, I do believe that when The Government steps in and supplies every imaginable sundry item to millions and millions more people every year, it does creates a dependency….and a significant number of people will, naturally, vote with their pocketbook…and their grocery bag, and their cell phone…for whoever promises to continue that program, and against, obviously, whoever they believe might end it.
Yes, of course we should focus on those vital, core necessities that many Americans truly do need and frankly deserve… but the point I was trying to make is, we cant just keep voting for more “stuff” every day, and pass the bill off to who? Some future generation that, by magic, will be smarter, richer, more resourceful and more fiscally disciplined that we are?

We don’t need more TAXES ladies and gentlemen, we need more TAX PAYERS…and the fastest way to get there is by DECREASING the tax burdens on businesses and entrepreneurs…the ones willing to take risks, start businesses, and hire folks as their business grow and thrive. It works, believe me, its worked every single time its ever been tried, and we have the numbers to prove it. When taxes go DOWN, overall revenue goes UP, because so many MORE folks are working, contributing, and investing in an America that does not PUNISH success. That’s just a plain fact of economics.

The last time a reporter put that inarguable, historic economic fact in front of my opponent, you know what he said?

He said “..well, yeah its true, but its not FAIR..”

Well, lemme tell ya, youre wrong Mr. President. Lowering the tax rates on folks that currently pay for the majority of Federal Spending IS fair… its fair, its honest, and its the right thing to do. Eliminating waste, fraud, mismanagement and bailouts and cronyism like Solyndra, Cash for Clunkers, and a host of other wasteful abuses of the American Peoples money, is fair, its honest, and its the the right thing to do…

Raising taxes on those who already shoulder the biggest chunk of the budget to pay for more of the same, is just plain wrong…

They earned that money, Mr. President, and they entrusted it to us…and we all too often let them down, wouldn’t you agree?”

Look at how this townhall is presented. Undecided voters. How can that be possible? Moderated by Crowley from CNN. Then in this setting we have on one side a man of huge success with a very thick resume standing with……Obama, president of the stars.

The danger for Romney lies in not confusing all the masters of indecision while apearing to be human to the the 2 champions of mediocrity.

The word that comes to mind about tonight’s face-off is counterpunching.

It’s unlikely given the format that for a candidate to swerve from the question asked to a direct attack on his opponent — on his policies or on his character; it doesn’t matter — will score well with the audience. But let’s imagine that one or the other will try to “punch” in that fashion. That tactic opens the user to a counterpunch — a reply that slips past the essence of the original punch to land a blow on a weakly defended area.

Obama is likely to want to “land a few” on Romney tonight: in part, because he’s been advised to be more aggressive; in part, because his dislike for Romney must have reached planetary size by now. If Romney is braced for such punches and prepared on the subject matter, he can make Obama wish he’d stayed in Washington.

As to how much Candy Crowley is going to help Obama? She gets to choose the question submitted by the so-called townspeople. All of the questions should be posted after the debate so the people can see if her choices were reasonable.

Let’s see….Why is it so hard for Obama’s approval rating to fall?
99% Media Support 24×7.
99% of all Black voters simply due to his race.
90% of Hispanic voters who seem to want the ‘gimme’ of free citizenship for illegals and care for nothing else.
49% of women who apparently like him because he’s a rock star.
100% of liberals because he’s a liberal.

That’s at least 40% of poll responders right there. And those folks wouldn’t have a low opinion of Obama until he began rounding up THEIR particular group and put them in camps, and probably not even then for race-based voters.

Anyone out there at ALL concerned for what’s best for this country? Well if there is, they sure aren’t voting for President Obama.

We might all be surprised by Crowley. I’ve seen her go after Dems on occasion, and very effectively.

Yes, there is enormous pressure on her to help Obama, but the woman has often struck me as a serious reporter. While not in the Jake Tapper mold, neither is she, imo, a hack like Matthews or Brian Williams, say. She may surprise us. That is the reason, I think, that both, I repeat, both campaigns are wary of her methods.

I respect your opinion though believe Crowley will have stars in her eyes for seeing our grifter-in-Chief vis-a-vis.

Not to mention she called the Romney/ Ryan ticket a ‘Death Wish’.

She’s a pure and utter Uhblame-O Homer.

I’ve got a feeling she’ll go ‘The View’-like and defend Uhbama when Romney has got him against the ropes.

We’d thought the VP moderator was showing her bias with interrupting Ryan AND not stopping the irritating interruptions by Plugs Biden.. I believe Crowley will step-in or even apologize for the Uhbama factual-smackdown he’ll be on the receiving end of.

She’s a CNN contributor for goodness sake! Sure Crowley has ‘gone after Dems on occasion’ but within the same breath she’ll breathe life back into the Illiberal cause.

Well, it seemed to me Raddatz was in the tank for Biden from the get-go. Sure Raddatz got all kinds of plaudits from the left on pimping for Smirkin’ Joe,but her rep took a pounding among independents and conservatives.

It’s possible–not likely, just possible–that Crowley will try to be even-handed so that the majority of observers will be able to say she didn’t favor either side. Sure, if she does this, she’ll get hammered by the left, but maybe she’ll put party loyalty aside because the event is so big; maybe she’ll be motivated by how her performance is viewed by the largest audience she’s ever had.

Unlike Biden, who has been a politician and debater his entire adult life in the US Senate, O is just not built for this.

He’s never had the power of persuasion–ever. He was a bright multiracial guy with a big ego and ambition who was in the right place at the right time. The left projected its entire agenda onto the idea of O, but the reality is shocking. The guy hates politics, and he’s never had the skills for it anyway.

O has never done well in any debate or town hall forum. R has been doing them for the past 18 months.

The best O can do here is tie–very similar to Biden. Unfortunately, he doesn’t have Biden’s skills.

There is a decent chance (say 30-40%) that he flops again in front of about 45-50 million people tonight. If so, election over.

One other point, however: the debates are not about O. He’s had four years to show everyone who is he and what his agenda and policies are. I’m not sure the liberal press really gets this.

R simply has to stand up, defend himself from attacks in a reasonable manner, and continue to propose change, bipartisanship, and optimism.

Not sure what O can do to counter. Say how good the stiimulus II will be? Say how good Ocare will be for everyone going forward? If he’s talking about OCare, he’s lost.

Look for Obama to be filled with bogus stats (ie Mitt’s alleged $5 trillion tax break for billionaires). He knows that no one is going to call him on his fibs. Obama has to give the appearance of confidence, competence, and of agressive leadership. The audience I’m sure will be fille with people who will throw him softballs; they will likely ambush Mitt with questions that are impossible to answer (ie Why do hate the poor?).

The President knows if he blows it his chances of winning will become very difficult. Also, look for the President to answer many of his questions in relation to Ohio – on energy he might say that “clean coal” will be subsidized if he is re-elected; or in relation to defence spending, he might announce increase production of the M-1 tank, which is manufactured in Ohio. The President will be desperate to reassert himself and steal the momentuem.

In a way this debate format will be a lose-lose for Mitt. He played it smart last time around by not using snark or sarcarsm. He also didn’t step into the the Dems “indignation trap”. The indignation trap is a situation where the MSM screams a collective “How dare you!” for bringing up say, Obama’s Bengahazi disaster. Mitt’s handlers will more than likely keep Mitt away from subjects that are bound to detract from his momentuem.

I think Mitt knows better than all of us what rhetorical traps await him. But, if he gets too defensive, the President will hammer him relentlessly on things like Mitt’s personal taxes, his time at Bain, and taxbreaks for millionaires and billionaires. Tonight’s debate in many ways will be an indication on how well Mitt can stay on his feet without becoming flustered. Like Ryan, he will have to be debating 2 people – the moderator and Obama. Another problem is that the townhall format could be rigged with people who have sob stories about being screwed by Big Corporations. I cannot imagine a questioner demanding that Obama explain why more people are unemployed today than in Jan 2009. Or why Al Qaida is now stronger than they were in 2008.

Good article over at MichelleMalkin regarding the recent history of the townhall format:
A reminder about the last plant-infested, CNN-run town hall debate
brief excerpt:
“…If any more political plants turn up at CNN’s presidential debates, the cable-news network will have to merge with the Home and Garden channel.

At CNN’s Democratic debate in Las Vegas two weeks back, moderator Wolf Blitzer introduced several citizen questioners as “ordinary people, undecided voters.” But they later turned out to include a former Arkansas Democratic director of political affairs, the president of the Islamic Society of Nevada and a far left anti-war activist who’d been quoted in newspapers lambasting Harry Reid for his failure to pull out of Iraq.

Yet CNN failed to disclose those affiliations and activism during the broadcast.”

I agree with several others above that this game is rigged and that the media, the “undecided voters” at the forum, and Candy Crowley, will all have it in for Romney. The entire story line will be “The comeback kid slays Romney!” I guarantee they will do their dead best to create that narative. Look at how they treated Biden after his “performance” last week.

For Romney to succeed tonight he is going to have to go over the heads of the media again, answer the questions cleverly and forthrightly, and create an undeniably inviting contrasting image. He can do that with his answers and his body language.

If he is able to pull that off, all the kings horses and his media courtiers won’t be able to put humpty dumpty back together again. It won’t matter what they prattle on about after 10:30.

Here’s to Romney threading the needle a 2nd time. It ain’t going to be at all easy.

Come to think of it, I’m willing to bet that Candy will “slip” the questions to Obumbles handlers prior to the debate. She’s a good little Marxist and understands what her role is. After all, CNN is part of the Democrat party.

What do you want to bet that Mitt will be asked about whether a Mormon can be a President because, after all, aren’t Mormons all into polygamy? Bet someone asks about why he needs so many houses, or why he has an elevator for his car in San Diego? Bet someone asks why Buffett’s secretary pays more in taxes than he does?

I’m sure it will be objective and fair.

Romney will look even better if he can maintain his cool and answer intelligently and gracefully. It will be a monumental challenge.

I can’t say I disagree with the analysis, Mr. Moran but, I do have a question. Why would you characterize a 10% drop in expectation, for an Obama debate win, as “some,” while describing an 8% rise in expectation, for a Romney debate win, as “marked?”

Who will take the new America by the utters and guarantee the growing degenerate and low intelligence masses of smart consumers a comfortable and prosperous life? The snotty, zarcastic, and judgmental upwardly mobile business feewomen may have stopped generating any replacants, but along with the new social order, her unstoppable equivalency parabola with men must be in decline, simply by numbers. She is comfortable with the throngs of males who choose the “you can do nothing” issue and donate their blood plasma, routinely, for the manufacturing of Travis D headache remedy, but who will be there to sacrifice their lives in the battlefield for her and hers’ new found liberty? She and her liberal steerage will obviously disdain the upright platform, particularly if it means she won’t have the convenience of drive-by “family planning” clinics. The founding fathers might rise from their graves and pack their muskets to buttress controversial matters like the common moral Christian decency they wrote into every word of the American panoply to distribute justice and abundant living for all. Waiving the competitive American flag with reams of regulatory statutes that have little to do with nudging the people towards redemption and salvation are tantamount to the proverbial ball and chain around the ankle of every “white” man since the 1964 Bill of Rights. And speaking of bills, if you want to believe a bill of goods that holds about as much water as a sieve, listen to the guys wearing the white hats in the White House. They are in reality a horse of a different colour.

I’m guardedly optimistic that Romney will deliver another crushing blow to Obama tonight.

Why? First, I have a friend who saw Romney live in my neck of the woods at a town hall style event a few months ago. He said Romney was fantastic in that setting. Very poised, sharp, and intellectually nimble.

Then, there’s Obama. Yes, he can function in a town hall setting, too. But he has one huge weakness. He won’t have his beloved teleprompter (just like in Denver).

That doesn’t mean he won’t be able to speak off the cuff. But the problem Obama has, when he doesn’t have is little ‘crutch’, is that he has this tendency to morph into “Commissar Obama”. I expect to see him utter some more of his “…the private sector is doing just fine…if you have a business, you didn’t build that..we all do better if those who have more share more of what they have…”, kind of nonsense.

What actually worries me most is the final debate on foreign policy. Romney has no real experience here, and on foreign policy-related topics, he comes off as rather canned and shallow. This is not his “turf”, unlike in the first debate, where he got to talk about the stuff he lives, eats, breaths, and sleeps.

So, whereas in the first debate, it was like Obama as a high school football team going up against the Dallas Cowboys, in the final debate – the last one the voters will see before the election – he’ll have an experience advantage. He HAS been conducting foreign policy for four years, no matter how badly. He is VERY opinionated on such issues, and can b.s. very effectively here. Most of all, Americans are VERY isolationist right now. Obama polls surprisingly well on foreign policy…because a lot of Americans WANT to withdraw from the world, as Obama is doing.

I hope I’m worrying too much, and Romney can trash him in round #3, as well.

I was thinking about it and it strikes me as a “Tet Offensive” moment. Obama and his people have been bragging about how Osama is dead and al Qaeda crippled. Then, crowds gather in Cairo, chanting, “Obama, Obama, we are ALL Osama”, plus the all-but-crippled al Qaeda launches a planned assault that kills our Ambassador in Libya and 3 other Americans. None of that sounds like Obama’s foreign policy changing the perception of America in the Middle East or winning the war on al Qaeda.

Similarly, it strikes me as odd that they keep saying they will find the perpetrators and “bring them to justice”. Obama sits down often with a list of names and approves which ones should be executed by drone attacks. The only justice they might get is a quick death. Shocking for a Nobel Peace Prize recipient.

Well, I’m sure that was the Jim Lehrer’s intention, and Martha Raddatz. It was obvious, especially in the latter case. It didn’t work, did it?

The MSM has no credibility anymore. The more they try to “rig” things, the more most of the voting public can see through it…and the more they will be sympathetic with the intended object of such blatant corruption.

Nobody has mentioned it because I guess nobody believes it. Or realizes it.

Remember when, in month one of his Presidency, Obama told reporters to stop badgering him with uncomfortable questions about positions and issues he didn’t want to talk about; didn’t like hearing about?

Like a gloating bully with a coterie of pals back him up, Obama said, “I won”. (the election) Discussion over.

Obama is very comfortable playing the bully, especially with the mainstream media lap-doging his every move; lie, misstep and gaffe.

In a mano a mano situation, however, with no one to rescue him except the moderator, (and the media after the fact) Obama feels a very natural normal human emotion.

Fear.

In the last debate Obama became frozen with it.

In September of 1944, my Uncle volunteered to be a sniper/scout with the 318 regiment, 80th blue ridge mountain division, part of Patton’s third army. It’s not the kind of job a community organizer comfortably fits into. Playing it as safe as possible, Obama even avoided getting a draft card.

Folks, Hannity calls Obama President Crybaby.

After tonight’s debate, more and more, people are going to realize Hannity’s description may have to be altered a bit.

To my way of thinking, “President Coward” has an even more apt ring to it. Romney’s gonna wipe the floor with him.